Talk:Chronostasis

An auditory example?

I wonder if I may have experienced the auditory form of this.

On the [[Rotten Tomatoes Show}} on Current TV, Ellen Fox and Brett Erlich, the two hosts were quite free with their expletives, which were frequently bleeped. But the censors were very lax; the bleeps usually didn't cover the entire word, and sometimes missed the word altogether. I had recorded the shows. On one occasion when Ellen Fox used an expletive which was bleeped, I kept rewinding and replaying those few seconds, but the bleep and the expletive came so close together, I couldn't decide which had come first. It was strange, and I don't know why I couldn't tell which had come first. Would it be this chronostasis? 99.9.112.31 (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)NotWillRiker

I'm not sure which is worse - that you did all of that in the first place, or that I've just reread it several times in disbelief. That I'm typing this at all is clearly far far worse than either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.46.110 (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Though I think this is an entertaining example, I don't think this is an example of chronostasis. Most often, chronostasis occurs due to the impact of expectation on perception. In the research cited in the article, experimenters were able to incite chronostasis by presenting a subject with a repeated pattern of stimulus 1, (delay), then stimulus 2. As this pattern is repeated, temporal perception in the subject is recalibrated to eliminate the delay and simply apply consider causal relationship between both stimuli. Thus, the order becomes (to the subject's perception) stimulus 1 then stimulus 2, without a delay. Then, by shortening the objective delay, experimenters could force the subject to perceive that stimulus 2 preceded stimulus 1 due to the disruption of their expectations for the timing of the stimuli. For more information on the link between expectation and temporal perception, see Eagleman's 'Human time perception and its illusions' as cited in the article. Also, see 'Auditory Chronostasis' as cited in the article for more information regarding specific mechanisms underlying auditory chronostasis illusions.

Christian Erdman (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

In pulse

so I don't have a source just yet, but I wanted to write it before I forgot. During panic attacks, I will compulsively check my pulse. It took me a while, but I noticed this effect after a time (I can see my pulse in my wrist.) Until recently, this would terrify me. I'll work on finding a real source, but the attacks make it hard to remember. if I can't find anything, I'll just leave it at that. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It could be that you are undead, but the virus makes you have a pulse only when you look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.160.91 (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if I'm mistaken, but it doesn't really sound like this has any connection with chronostasis. Also, feel free to cite any relevant sources if you find them.

Christian Erdman (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 1

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 1

• Only added 7,566 bytes; half the minimum. Please add more non-redundant info.

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 1.9

• 9 Peer reviewed journal articles

5. Links: 1.5

• More links, which will probably come with more info. There are also plenty of things currently in the article that aren't exactly common knowledge, inform us.

6. Responsive to comments: 2 - I'll assume.

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 1.5

• In general, fairly redundant and "slow" writing style, seems almost like you're just writing to fill space in some sections. This is a really interesting topic actually, I'd love if you presented more info, even if it's only related to the topic. Extrapolate, don't reiterate.

• Revise the first sentence "following the introduction of a new event or task demand to the brain appears to be extended in time". This doesn't make sense, right? Jwratner1's original explanation is much better. Don't rephrase just to get pseudo-novel content...

• "Sensation, information collected from our eyes, is usually directly interpreted to create our perception. This perception is the collection of information that we consciously interpret from visual information" - eliminate the first comma, and the second sentence is redundant.

• "In regards to frequency, the occurrence of many, similar events can exaggerate duration overestimation and makes the effects of chronostasis more severe. In regards to repetition," -> "In regard to frequency, the occurrence of many similar events can exaggerate duration overestimation and make the effects of chronostasis more severe. In regard to repetition," - frequency and repetition are singular, so 'regard' not regards', and an extra comma was in there.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1

• Very interesting topic, and good visual. Please expand!

_______________

Total: 16.9 out of 20

Alec DeFilippo (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2013 (EST)

Thanks Alec, I appreciate the specific suggestions. As for the length, I have had a hard time determining what would be "non-redundant" information due to the fact that a few of the principles involved in chronostasis already have pages of their own. For instance, saccadic masking and visual perception both have unique pages. I would rather have a shorter, quality article than to add redundant phrases simply for the sake of length. Any suggestions for specific topics you think I could elaborate on? In regards to the wording, thanks for the advice. Because this is a relatively complex topic it is difficult to simplify it whilst remaining direct, so outside recommendations are always welcome. Thanks again for your comments, let me know if you have any more suggestions!

Christian Erdman (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

1. Quality of Information: 2 Fascinating and relevant information!

2. Article size: 1 I didn't realize that this was at one time a stub until reviewing Reviewer 1's comments- how lazy of me! You certainly have a lot of room to add on to the topic, especially given that there was 5kB to start with!

3. Readability: 2

4. Refs: 2.0 I see 8 peer reviewed articles, 2 books, and a BBC reference...Seems fine to me.

5. Links: 2 I thought the linkage was sufficient for my understanding, but maybe I'm a know-it-all.

6. Responsive to comments: 2 Author is responsive. :)

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 1 The writing style was that of a conversation, which i always think is appropriate for a wikipedia article (makes it easier to follow). However, you are well under the 15 kB limit, and this topic is certainly intriguing enough to expand on almost all of your points!

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 2 Loved the visual. Definately made the topic clear.

_______________

Total: 18 out of 20

Michael K. Duke (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Michael, thanks for the comments! I'm glad you thought the topic is interesting; it is definitely something that fascinates me as well. What do you think would be good specific points for elaboration? I would love to add more information, but would hate to muddle the clarity of the article or include information that could be found on other Wikipedia pages.

Christian Erdman (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is room for growth under modulating factors. For instance, I'm curious as to why greater angular movement required in eye motion causes an increase in overestimation for saccadic amplitude. Heuristically, i would think the ms difference between a 90 degree shift in focus and a 120 degree shift in focus would be almost negligible. For attention redirection, after reading what you wrote it seemed like it wasn't important as a modulating factor, so a bit of clarification there would be nice as well. You gave the why's for spatial continuity and stimulus properties, just giving that why for saccadic amplitude and attention redirection as well would be beneficial for the article! Thanks for responding to the comments, i updated your responsiveness grade to match. :)

Michael K. Duke (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 3

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: .5

• You only added about 7kB I can't give you more points than this, sorry!

3. Readability: 1

• If I was a lay person, I think I would have a very hard time following this information. For example, "where the first movement of the second hand of an analog clock, following the viewer's directing attention to the clock, appears to take longer than the next movement" was a little hard to follow the first time I read through the article. Also, explain terms like auditory and visual domain.

4. Refs: 1.5

• You have 9 peer reviewed articles and 2 books. Try to find more secondary sources like Dr. Potter suggested.

5. Links:2

6. Responsive to comments:2

7. Formatting: 1.5

• I think your headings need to be more specific. You talk about the most well-known illusion of chronostasis is the stopped clock illusion. Are there other kinds? Are the mechanisms the same for all types of the chronostasis illusions? This might seem pointless but someone who doesn't know about chronostasis may get confused.

8. Writing:1.0

• Just write more so it doesn't seemed rushed and like you just took a sentence from your source and stuck it into your article.
• Make sure that you explain the jargon better like for Spatial continuity that needs to be explained a little more. A lay person wouldn't know what that was by your description.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?:1

• Add more information and expand on other types or examples of chronostasis

I think it is a great start, and this article will be great when you add more information!

Total: 14.5 out of 20

Jlukeedwards (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Luke. As you can see in my replies to the other two reviewers, I have been stumped regarding the elaboration of information included in the article. As you were reading, were their any specific topics that jumped out as bare or unexplained? I would hate to be redundant, but elaboration is always be helpful for such complex topics. Also, thanks for your specific suggestions regarding syntax, I'll be sure to clarify these phrases. Thanks again!

Christian Erdman (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)